May 18, 2014

He writes that he has "heard from several talented young women who are a big part of The New York Times’s future." One said: “I really don’t see a path for me here... Are we O.K.?”

Carr also reveals — or this is the first place I've seen this — that Dean Baquet, the new executive editor, laid down an ultimatum to the publisher Arthur Sulzberger, saying "he would leave the paper because he found the situation untenable" (i.e., it's her or me).

"In the past six months, Arthur’s son, Arthur Gregg Sulzberger, has been leading a task force to prepare a report on the newsroom in the digital era, which was made public last week. It includes a panoply of mostly sensible suggestions — but the fact that the son of the publisher was interviewing Abramson's employees at a time when their relationship was in turmoil cannot have helped the situation. And Sulzberger's son, thought to be his probable successor, was by the end of his fact-finding intimately aware of feelings (and dysfunction) in the newsroom to an extent that has often eluded the Sulzbergers (most notably during the Raines era)."

I almost forgot. Naturally, after the sex change your pay will be reduced per newspaper policy. I know you're up speed on all that after the recent unpleasantness with Jill so I won't go in to details.

Since you've been covering every feminist angle in the Abramson story, I wonder if you'd care to comment on this quote.

Flying to pieces and demanding that everybody stop and comfort you is an extremely gendered type of bad behavior. Should we demand that she get it together and act like a grownup? Or does feminism always mean taking the woman's side, even when she's acting like a pill?

Of course Baquet was upset. After being passed over for the EE job in favor of her, he finds out she is planning to install another outsider above him in the food chain, without consulting either him or apparently Sulzberger about it.

Baquet was editor of the LA Times. Abramson had never edited anything bigger than the Legal Times, her highest position since then had been Washington bureau chief for NYT more than a decade ago, until Pinch brought her back as managing editor, leapfrogging many more qualified people.

Howell Raines was a far greater failure than Abramson, but he managed to fade away with more dignity. I don't know if this is prima feces evidence of sexism on Sulzberger's part, but none of this makes him look good. On the other hand, maybe Abramson could have read the writing on the wall and asked for an extra zero or two on her severance package in order make a graceful exit. I don't root for anyone in this case, but Sulzberger appears to be the biggest klutz.........I just hope those brutes in Nigeria don't do anything to harm their captives. That might cause the public to lose focus on this far more important sexual discrimination case. Maybe Abramson could use her connections to ransom and, perhaps, adopt one of the girls. That would generate favorable publicity for her and help wed her case with that of the Boko Haram kidnapping in the public mind.

So the guy who elevated Abramson to the top in the first place is sexist?

There's no pleasing libtards. They are the real sexists. There's nothing like the sacking of an executive to help effect a much needed round of promotions in an organization. It's not as if they were going to come from growth. If these Women think there's no path for them simply because Abramson was forced out, they only saw her as a walking vagina all along. No man could work for them and expect a fair shake. I'd get rid of them, too.

So the guy who elevated Abramson to the top in the first place is sexist?

There's no pleasing libtards. They are the real sexists. There's nothing like the sacking of an executive to help effect a much needed round of promotions in an organization. It's not as if they were going to come from growth. If these Women think there's no path for them simply because Abramson was forced out, they only saw her as a walking vagina all along. No man could work for them and expect a fair shake. I'd get rid of them, too.

As I pointed out in a previous post, NYT online gets about 30x the page views of Powerline, and 10x the page views of Instapundit. The former is run by a small group of practicing attorneys in their spare time, and the latter, by a single law professor, in his spare time, except when he recruits replacements (like Anne) when he goes on vacation. They essentially do it for free, and don't make much, if any, money on it.

Meanwhile, the NYT pays its executive editor north of 1/3 million dollars a year, and apparently also supports a number of Sulzberger ner-do-wells. Along with paying for a bunch of other people with various job functions and titles. It is hard to believe that they will be able to survive with such an expensive operation, given the amount of free content available on the Internet, and how badly they have done in their online endeavors in the past. (Though, they do seem to be trying to address this with the next generation of Sulzbergers - would this one be "Greg", or some variation of Punch and Pinch?)

… Mr. Sulzberger, working with Mr. Baquet and Mr. Thompson, may have failed to understand the impact Ms. Abramson’s firing would have, both internally and with the public.

Translation: Our owner is an idiot. So are his two brown-nosers.

Then, a few lines later tries to backtrack and make the owner look less like an imbecile:

People close to Mr. Sulzberger said that he was fully aware his decision would create an uproar, including charges of sexism, but that he made the announcement because it was right for the newspaper and the people who work there.

… this has become a grinding spectacle.

Yep. Here he must confess to the obvious.

The news set off a gleeful frenzy in Manhattan media, which usually have to subsist on fake New York Times controversies.

Fake? Earlier he was blabbing on about Jayson Blair, Howell Raines and a Mexican Millionaire. Here he quit too soon. He should've conitnued: … which usually have to subsist on fake New York Times controversies, such as ... and then named a few of those fake controversies. That he did not implies the opposite.

How did our workplace suddenly become a particularly bloody episode of “Game of Thrones”?

Offhand, I'd say the cause is mainly mismanagement by the owner.

We have a talented executive editor, a stable if challenged business outlook and a very dedicated audience.

The only thing that I believe in the above is the "dedicated audience" part. Diehard fans are a lifesaver – for awhile, anyway.

I guess he had to write something about this controversy, as proof of the NYT's impartiality(snicker). Given what we know so far I'd say he's done about as well as could be expected.

Martha said...Dean Baquet threatened to leave the New York Times if Abramson were not removed. Pinch chose the Black editor over the woman. The bitch story is just cover.

5/18/14, 12:06 PM

I believe I had read that in a Dylan Byers Politico column. I also read that Jill is feeding info to the New Yorker and Pinch is feeding info to Politico so I guess Pinch wanted everyone to know Baquet made him do it: brutally fire Abramson

Or maybe he's decorated in the same sense that an interior may be decorated, with tasteful furnishings in harmonizing colors. His skin tone matched the Times's office decor better than Abramson's; she had to go.

(She’ll have more opportunity on Monday when she gives the commencement speech at Wake Forest.)

I feel for the Wake Forest graduating class. The last thing they need on their biggest day is to listen to a bitter person unload on a former employer. Perhaps Abramson will be more grown up than David Carr suspects, but he does claim to know her.

"Don't like your job, or think the boss in not "fair," go work somewhere else, or start your own "fair" company and let me know how that works out."

Yes, yes, that is the equal opportunity for which they should be striving. I thought the same thing when the Sterling racism hit the fan and a black NBA player suggested there be an all-black basketball league. Yes, do it, for once, do it. What a difference you'll feel if you succeed.

"David Carr questions "whether The Times can convince female employees that it is a fair place to work, with ample opportunity to advance."

Really? What options do these woman have? It's not like there is a vast job pool of available jobs in left-wing media. Indeed the prospects for all of the NYT employees outside the paper isn't great for the news and editorial staff. Long term the only salvation for the paper is new ownership.